Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO CABAYA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 129875 2005-09-30	JOVITO CABUSLAY v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
In addition, the claim of the defense that Paquito shot Regencia on his right thigh is untenable. Petitioner would have the Court believe that Paquito dared challenge five policemen, four of them in full battlegear, at a checkpoint and armed with only a handgun. This is contrary to ordinary human experience, as well as the human instinct which is to flee for dear life and seek safety. If indeed Paquito was armed and had criminal designs in his mind, the natural tendency upon seeing a checkpoint ahead would be to abort one's plans and leave the premises immediately. Petitioner's story not only was contrary to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life, in all appearances it was also contrived.[58] Respondent court was correct in rejecting it.
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
Thus, for circumstantial evidence to suffice, (1) there should be more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[57] Like an ornate tapestry created out of interwoven fibers which cannot be plucked out and assayed a strand at a time apart from the others, the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of all others, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.[58] The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.[59] Accordingly, we have set guidelines in appreciating circumstantial evidence: (1) it should be acted upon with caution; (2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt; (3) the facts must exclude every theory but that of guilt; and (4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.[60]
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
Both Diosdado III and Godofredo denied the charges hurled against them. But, while it is true that alibi and denial are the weakest of the defenses as they can easily be fabricated,[68] absent such clear and positive identification, the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused must yield to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[69] Hence, while denial is concededly fragile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based thereon.[70] The rule in criminal law is firmly entrenched that verdicts of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[71]
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
Consequently, the case of the prosecution has been reduced to nothing but mere suspicions and speculations. It is hornbook doctrine that suspicions and speculations can never be the basis of conviction in a criminal case.[85] Courts must ensure that the conviction of the accused rests firmly on sufficient and competent evidence, and not the results of passion and prejudice.[86] If the alleged inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence is not adequate to support conviction.[87] The court must acquit the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is therefore insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.[88] Conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused.[89] The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[90] It is thus apropos to repeat the doctrine that an accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt the prosecution must overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden. Accordingly, we have to acquit.